JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - These are two revision petitions in which petitioner Palak is common to both, with petitioner No.2 in CR No.58 of 2019, Rani, not being a petitioner in CR No.177 of 2019.

2. The orders impugned in each of the two petitions are passed by the same court (Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar), both on November 13, 2018, but arising out of two different suits filed by respondent Gurdeep Singh, i.e. the sole respondent in CR No.58 of 2019 and the first (contesting) respondent in CR No.177 of 2019, the 2nd respondent therein being a co-defendant of petitioner Palak in the suit and therefore impleaded only as a proforma respondent in the revision petition before this court.

3. The two orders impugned in this petition have both been passed dismissing the applications filed by the 1st petitioner (1st defendant in the two different suits), both applications invoking jurisdiction of the trial court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"). The petitioners had sought amendment of their written statements on the same ground in both the suits, but with the two suits being different, two separate orders have been passed by the trial court.

4. Consequently, it is considered appropriate to first look at the order impugned in the first petition, i.e. CR No.58 of 2019 and thereafter in the second petition, i.e. CR No.177 of 2019.

CR No.58 of 2019

5. The application under Order 6, Rule 17, as is the subject-matter of this petition, was filed in a suit instituted by respondent Gurdeep Singh, seeking recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioners, on account of damages and compensation that the plaintiff considers due to him.

6. The subject-matter of the suit shall be referred to in paragraph 15 infra, with it to be noticed at this point that the impugned order is one by which the application has been dismissed on the ground that it was filed at a stage when issues had already been framed by the trial court on 11.08.2016, with the application having been filed on 16.07.2018, i.e. two years thereafter and the plaintiff already having led his evidence and even having been "sufficiently cross-examined". It was also observed by the trial court that no cross-examination on the specific issue had been made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, i.e. with regard to her having been made to sign blank papers.

7. In fact, vide the application the petitioners wished to incorporate in the written statement an averment that the signatures of petitioner No.1 (defendant No.1 in the suit), had been obtained by the plaintiff on blank papers at the time when she worked in his office.

8. In the application it was also stated in paragraph 2 that "due to inadvertently and oversight" the applicant-defendant could not mention in the written statement that the plaintiff used to obtain her signatures on some blank papers during the period that she worked in his office.

9. It was contended by the petitioners that no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff if the amendment was allowed.

10. The respondent-plaintiff having filed a reply to that application before the trial court, stating therein that with his evidence already having been led by way of examination-in-chief, the proposed amendment amounted to a setting up a new case by way of a new defence.

11. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court first noticed the statutory provision, i.e. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, further noticing that the suit was filed on 26.10.2015, with the defendants having appeared through counsel on 9.12.2015 and having filed a written statement on 23.05.2016.

12. Thereafter, with the issues having been framed on 11.08.2016 and the plaintiff having led his "affirmative evidence", when the case was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the application came to be filed on 16.07.2018.

13. As already noticed, it is also stated in the impugned order that the plaintiff had been "suffici